Mayor Bruce Bain

Newark-Granville water line agreement, Resolution #07-02

First allow me to preface my remarks by stating clearly that what I’m about to say is not a violation of the adopted Newark-Granville water line

agreement. I am holding onto this resolution for a short period of time, even though it was classified as an emergency. Therefore, it has not

gone into affect. Before I either allow this to go into affect or take other action, I feel an obligation to share my thinking with all of City Council

and with the citizens of Newark.

As I stated at the City Council meeting, I am considering the veto of Resolution #07-02. This is out of no disrespect to those Council members

who voted to adopt the proposal. On the contrary, I believe that we in-fact share basically the same view. I also realize that as the current vote

stands, an overriding of a veto could transpire.

However, in view of the circumstances, I must carefully consider this, out of principle and out of

concern for long-term effects to Newark as a whole. Please know that I have had a lot of problems accepting this agreement. I’ve talked this over with

Tim Weisert and Doug Sassen on several occasions – they are fully aware of my concerns. Yet, this resolution (#07-02) had to be presented to

Council because quite frankly, it was the best agreement of this type that could be crafted with the other party in question.

I do believe that the relationship between Newark and Granville has been severely damaged. I do not believe that this damage has been in anyway

caused by the city of Newark. I stated last night that relationships such as those between cities, townships and villages are a two-way street. I do

not believe that the village government of Granville has treated Newark fairly; nor do I believe that the village administration is separate from what I

sincerely to be a totally misguided annexation attempt.

As I carefully consider a veto, I would invite any council member to come into my office and speak personally with me about this. I do not take the

veto responsibility lightly. … I will listen carefully. With that said, allow me to respond to some various things regarding this situation.

1. I’ve been having real difficulty with this agreement ever since I first read what was adopted by the Granville Village Council regarding what appears

to be a “gag” on Newark officials. In a country of free individuals, elected representatives have a right to speak out on various subjects. Any type of

gag order or agreement almost seems to be counter-democratic in nature. I do fully understand free speech rights and various Supreme Court rulings

which in-fact place limitations on this civil liberty.

2. What would my reaction be if the situation was reversed? I honestly can say that if any township, Heath or Granville ever needs to construct something

inside the city limits of Newark for the safety of their citizens, they may do so. We must help each other, especially in terms of safety.

3. Mayor Melissa Hartfield stated that, “we haven’t even discussed (whether Granville would prevent water line installation).” What were the two sides

discussing then that led to this proposed agreement? That is exactly what I authorized to be discussed. The City of Newark went into conversations with

Granville officials to see if we could indeed do this.

4. Mayor Hartfield stated in the Advocate that it was Newark that brought the proposed agreement to Granville. That then infers that it was Newark’s

idea for the “gag” order. This is completely false. We brought the request to Granville that we be allowed to place this water line through the land

in question, if it were annexed into Granville. It was a Granville counter to this request that a gag be placed on Newark officials in exchange for Granville

allowing the water line. Granville officials clearly made it known that this was the price for the installation.

5. Does Newark need this water tank and line for the proposed E-85 ethanol plant? My willingness to possibly veto the proposed agreement, should make

that clear … this is not for the plant and never has been. Do Granville officials believe this? I don’t know, I do know that they were very concerned that

the water line was really for the plant.

6. Is the village of Granville behind the annexation efforts or is the annexation drive truly based on property rights of individual land owners? I cannot be

certain. However, there are some very unusual things that illustrate the great possibility that the Granville government has orchestrated this entire annexation

effort. If that is the case, then the property rights argument doesn’t really apply here. I do know from several people in and near the proposed annexation,

that according to them, scare tactics were used to gather names for the annexation petition. They have stated that land owners were given the choice

between annexing into the village or being “taken” by Newark. Newark doesn’t take land and land coming into Newark is in accordance with land owners

wishes. Knowing several of these people personally, I find no reason for them to lie regarding this matter. The entire “wall” appearance of the proposed

annexation leads one to assume that someone with experience in government had to be at the center of the petition drive, to make sure that the

“wall” was completed. Everyone knows that annexations come into villages and cities in chunks and nothing like what is appearing in this annexation attempt.

In normal annexations, a lead petitioner or a hired attorney will present the request to the County Commissioners. Yet, in this case, it is the Granville Village Planner

that is carrying their torch. This is highly unusual. In view of the fact that a Planner plans things for the village, it would seem almost evident that he has

done the planning behind this annexation. Yet what type of logical plan can one call this annexation – it will create a village with a long tail. Why would Granville

Village officials be so concerned about Newark appearing before the County Commissioners, unless of course, they are behind the annexation proposal? I find it

very curious that the Granville “wall” directly blocks the 208 water infrastructure plans of Newark. How would Granville Township landowners know this? Is it just

a coincidence? There is little doubt in my mind that as soon as the 2008 planning came out, someone in the village government went to work on the landowners.

If this is true, then this would be an abuse of the 208 planning concept. The 208 plans are just guesses as to what areas could be served by village and city

services in the distant future. The 208 plans have nothing to do with “taking land.” I invite anyone to view the 208 plans. All of the communities of Licking County

have been “guesses” as to what they MAY be able to service in the future. Many of these guesses even overlap each other.

7. Normal annexations deal with the need for services. However, everything about this proposed annexation is suspect and out of the ordinary. Not only don’t the

Township residents not want all of the village services; Granville Village officials are alright with providing more rights to these individuals than what other village

citizens have (such as hunting rights). It would seem that the annexation is for no other reason than to “wall off” Newark and is literally in name only. This would

clearly indicate once again that the annexation is about something else than normal requests. Of course, in this particular case and with the distances involved,

the village would be stretched to provide the normal services. Most likely, the plan is to call upon Newark to provide mutual aid services that the Village just can’t

logistically provide; at the cost to Newark taxpayers. Yet another indication that things are amiss was an excuse used by a petition carrying township citizen,

implying that the reason for the annexation was in-fact to prevent the water tower from being constructed. Obviously, that excuse has changed with the

proposed Newark-Granville agreement; yet the annexation will continue. Interestingly, before this agreement was drafted, it was told to us that village officials had to

first confer with the lead petitioners. Why would that be the case? Clearly, there is a strong connection of some type between the petitioners and the village

government.

8. Can Newark still provide service without this proposed water tower and line? Yes. It would not be a flow system and would require flushing from time to time. Can

the pressure issue be corrected even with a “dead end system?” Yes. As it stands now, we have qualified for a low cost OWDA loan, which must be consummated

by February of this year. To go with a dead end system will require more time than this because land will have to be purchased from Rockford homes. So in that

circumstance, the loan would be lost. Could we get another low cost OWDA loan later for this dead end water tower and its line? Most likely … there is a high chance

that we could get this. I wouldn’t see why this wouldn’t be possible. When would construction take place? We would most likely have to put construction off for a year.

However, a water tower will be constructed, either way that we chose to proceed.